posted at 12:41 pm on March 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, “They might, and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk.”…

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of,” he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table. Rubio and Paul and Jindal et al. won’t have to squirm over whether to endorse SSM, back a federalist approach to the issue, or oppose it on the merits. They can just shrug and say “The Court was wrong but whaddaya gonna do?” and move on to other business. Take it from Huckabee: That won’t happen. Abortion’s technically been “off the table” for 40 years and yet it’s still an absolute litmus test for any potential GOP nominee (and any potential Democratic nominee too). To keep social conservatives onboard, candidates will be asked to promise (a) that they’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who are committed to overturning any gay-marriage rulings and (b) that they’ll endorse some sort of constitutional amendment that would either ban SSM outright or, at a minimum, return the issue to the states. (The amendment will go nowhere but that’s beside the point here.) Think a prospective nominee won’t do some squirming over whether they should sign on to those propositions, especially given the GOP’s panic over losing young voters? Come 2016, this won’t be just about gay marriage anymore; it’ll be a test of whether social conservatives retain the same influence over the party platform that they’ve had for the last few decades. That’s why Huck’s framing this in apocalyptic “stick with us or we walk” terms. It’s their party, at least on social issues.

With respect to what’s best for other GOP pols, the simple explanation is the correct one: They’re better off if the Court surprises everyone and upholds Prop 8. Then the 2016 field can take the position that they’re personally opposed to SSM in order to placate social cons while insisting that, as good federalists, they want local voters to decide this issue for themselves. That sort of squishy middle-way stance won’t dazzle anyone on either side but it might hold the Republican coalition together by reassuring Huck and his supporters that red states will still get to chart their own course. It might also be acceptable to young voters in the sense that the potential GOP nominee won’t be standing in the way of gay marriage in states when the votes are there. But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer. In that case, taking the federalist position via a constitutional amendment will be seen as an attempt to roll back marriage rights that gays have already won. Young voters likely will find that alienating, and social cons may reason that an amendment to return power to the states on the subject simply doesn’t go far enough as a rebuke to a judiciary that’s out of control. What politicians cherish is room to maneuver, and a pro-SSM ruling leaves the GOP with less of that than an anti-SSM ruling would.

Anyway. Across the aisle, Mark Begich magically decided last night that he too is now pro-gay marriage, which makes three Democratic senators who have “evolved” in just the past 24 hours. I’m starting a pool as of right now: At what time today will the next Democratic holdout formally declare his support for SSM? I’ll take 2 p.m. ET.

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Gun control and amnesty both have tangible, demonstrable historical impacts that can be cited as part of the debate. Gay marriage doesn’t. I’m not saying that means we can’t oppose it…but I am saying gay marriage is a non-issue compared to the rest. It’s like worrying about your car’s window trim while the engine is on fire.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I am saying that gay marriage isn’t the only reason you are seeing rumbling. It is just the most vocal, partly because of the play it gets on Hotair. I think alot of people not just evangelicals feel like the GOP has absolutely no idea what their base or their voters stand for. I mean when you have lost Bluegill on amnesty.. :)

There’s a lot of truth to that. If the GOP had an ounce of sense, they would respond by taking these social, special interest issues off the table and say sure, “we’re for freedom and for individuals to pursue happiness in their own way.” Instead, they sound like a bunch of nannies, hectoring and lecturing people on what’s good, right and holy instead of explaining how we can improve the standard of life for all.

One problem with your analysis. Gay marriage is not asking the government to have a limited roll in our lives. You are asking the state (and by virtue the VOTERS) to sanction a private relationship. You are asking the state via licensing for PERMISSION to marry the “one that you love. Want the government to have a limited roll, don’t get a state marriage. Stop trying to say that state licensing is not a voters concern because it is. You just don’t want it to be an evangelical voters concern, because you don’t like them.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Gay marriage is asking the government to limit its roll. Not allowing gay marriage means that the government can tell individuals what they can and can’t do. The state sanctions things I don’t believe in all the time, and I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling free and independent adults what they can and can’t do as long as those adults arent violating someone elses liberties or robbing them of their private property.

I have no problem with gay people, nor do I have any problems with evangelicals. Both groups do and say things I don’t agree with but that is their right to live their lives as they see fit. Who am i to tell them – either group – what they can and can’t do. you appear to be just another big government supporter as long as the government is doing things you support.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

If the government does nothing, we don’t have same sex marriage. If we’re going to have same sex marriage, it will be because activists want the government to force a change upon our society.

You can keep trying to pretend you’re on the side of small government here, but you’re pushing for a government big enough to tell the rest of us that you can’t let men and women marry unless you change the current laws to allow men to marry men. Big government forcing the redefinition of existing human institutions to enforce your notions of “fairness.” It’s as progressive as anything proposed by Obama.

Unless churches, as opposed to government, are talking about redefining marriage, how is it a religious issue?
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Churches are called to be witnesses to the unsaved world and to abide by precepts of God. “Lamp on a hill”, “Salt of the earth”, “be not conformed to the world”, etc, etc. When attempting to normalize sin as law asks a Christian for their vote they’ve made it a religious issue as well as a political one.

Of course they can have children. Either through natural or artificial insemination. As for “naturally pair bonding” (whatever the hell that means), by your logic the child’s welfare is a state interest and the couple should therefore be allowed to marry. Or does the state only have in interest in the children of heterosexual couples?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

They are both not the parents of the child. You said so yourself. It’s like saying should a brother and sister be allowed to marry if they are taking care of the neighbor’s son. Except that a brother and sister could have the possibility of actually procreating.

There’s a lot of truth to that. If the GOP had an ounce of sense, they would respond by taking these social, special interest issues off the table and say sure, “we’re for freedom and for individuals to pursue happiness in their own way.” Instead, they sound like a bunch of nannies, hectoring and lecturing people on what’s good, right and holy instead of explaining how we can improve the standard of life for all.

There’s a lot of truth to that. If the GOP had an ounce of sense, they would respond by taking these social, special interest issues off the table and say sure, “we’re for freedom and for individuals to pursue happiness in their own way.” Instead, they sound like a bunch of nannies, hectoring and lecturing people on what’s good, right and holy instead of explaining how we can improve the standard of life for all.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM

How about we try state’s rights.. Oh yeah, that doesn’t work because liberals never abide by that.

Don’t you realize that alot of socons are that way because they are REACTIONARY SOCONS? Most of us are quite happy letting California and Massachusetts become the liberal cesspools they were meant to be. It is when California and Massachusetts push their views on us via the judiciary and federal government that we become active.

Psst. Ever heard of in vitro? But let’s put that omission aside and ask the real question. When a gay couple adopts a child, what makes their union any less deserving of the rights, privileges and immunities granted by a marriage contract than any other couple?

Gay marriage is asking the government to limit its roll. Not allowing gay marriage means that the government can tell individuals what they can and can’t do. The state sanctions things I don’t believe in all the time, and I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling free and independent adults what they can and can’t do as long as those adults arent violating someone elses liberties or robbing them of their private property.

I have no problem with gay people, nor do I have any problems with evangelicals. Both groups do and say things I don’t agree with but that is their right to live their lives as they see fit. Who am i to tell them – either group – what they can and can’t do. you appear to be just another big government supporter as long as the government is doing things you support.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

No gay marriage does not ask the government to limit the government. OMG that is liberal speak if I ever heard it. Gay marriage is asking the government to EXPAND its role. And you may not want the government to tell what people can and can’t do, but that is EXACTLY what state licensing is meant to do. If it wasn’t, there would be no need to license marriage.

I didn’t say a word about Christianity, you hypersensitive liar. I’m talking about a political issue. I’ve taken enough s**t from snotty atheists spitting at me for suggesting that their claim that there is no god is just another religious belief, as well as defending Christianity as a more noble religion than Islam, to let knee-jerk insecure pseudo-Christians peg me as anti-Christian. Faith is not determined by a stupid, insignificant political issue that shouldn’t even be on our radar with all the other crap going on.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

One of the fundamental building blocks of society and civilization should not be defended? Are you freaking serious? You are a bigot. Your bigotry towards Christians was clear because when we talk about social conservatives, we aren’t talking about Muslims, Buddhists, etc. There’s only one group out there and you chose to attack them for standing up for civilization.

I am saying that gay marriage isn’t the only reason you are seeing rumbling. It is just the most vocal, partly because of the play it gets on Hotair. I think alot of people not just evangelicals feel like the GOP has absolutely no idea what their base or their voters stand for. I mean when you have lost Bluegill on amnesty.. :)

The TRADITIONAL definition of “marriage’ being re-defined from bewteen a man and a woman to include same-sex copuples?
o Again, got it. ‘Marriage’ to most is understood to be a ceremony in which a couple asks for God’s blessing of the union. As God has already called homosexuality an ‘abomination’ the idea of including same-sex unions in the traditional definition of marriage is unacceptable.

What about the concept & legal ramifications of a ‘CIVIL UNION’?
o IMO what the fight is REALLY over is the LEGAL, GOVERNMENT recognition of a ‘civil union’ between couples that includes the same legal, monetary, proiperty, etc benefits currently bestowed on man-woman couples. It is a ‘worldly’ versus ‘spiritual’ argument, boiled down in ultimate basis.

Does Huckabee & Evangelicals disapprove of those same legal/monetary benefits being bestowed by a legal/governent agency’s recognition of same-sex civil unions? Would they ‘walk’ if the GOP supported THAT?

When a gay couple adopts a child, what makes their union any less deserving of the rights, privileges and immunities granted by a marriage contract than any other couple?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM

What makes an incestuous couple? What makes a polyamorous grouping? What makes a SINGLE MOM ANY less deserving? Well other than the fact that the state found that their interest lies in not recognizing those unions..

You are a bigot. Your bigotry towards Christians was clear because when we talk about social conservatives, we aren’t talking about Muslims, Buddhists, etc. There’s only one group out there and you chose to attack them for standing up for civilization.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Right here on Hot Air, we have non-Christian social conservatives that oppose gay marriage. There are many more out there.

So your own statement actually makes you a bigot for painting them with your ridiculously broad brush.

Lets do the math. The dems start with a base of 40% of the vote. In the last election they picked up an additional 11% between independents an liberal “repulicans.” The pubs ended up with 49% of the vote which includes the socons who make up 17% of the votes. Go ahead and subtract that 17% and it gives you 32%. Do you honestly believe you will get 10 of that 11% that voted for dems? So cast out the so-cons at your own risk.

There’s a lot of truth to that. If the GOP had an ounce of sense, they would respond by taking these social, special interest issues off the table and say sure, “we’re for freedom and for individuals to pursue happiness in their own way.” Instead, they sound like a bunch of nannies, hectoring and lecturing people on what’s good, right and holy instead of explaining how we can improve the standard of life for all.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM

You’re certainly not taking anything off the table. You’re an advocate. You push progressive social issues and force people to accept that morality. How are you any different than the people you’ve also advocated to have purged from the party?

Are you serious? The population in Florida was just over 15 million in 2000, was over 17 million in 2004, and over 19 million in 2011. Do you possibly think that the numbers increased because the actual population increased. I’m not saying your theory is wrong, I’m just saying a more accurate description for analysis would be to use percentage of those that voted.

I don’t want to hector or lecture people, but social & economic conservatism are integrated.
Reagan got it.
Many thoughtful conservatives get it.
If folks want to bash Huckabee because they think he’s big government, fine. But most socons are not like him.

There’s a lot of truth to that. If the GOP had an ounce of sense, they would respond by taking these social, special interest issues off the table and say sure, “we’re for freedom and for individuals to pursue happiness in their own way.” Instead, they sound like a bunch of nannies, hectoring and lecturing people on what’s good, right and holy instead of explaining how we can improve the standard of life for all.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Please explain how Prop 8, which started this debate and initiated in the State of California helps your argument.

w about this issue is not talk about it. But then, Hot Air traffic would drop from minimal to almost nonexistent.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Yeah but that doesn’t work for us. Romney was a horrible campaigner partly because when social issues came up; he was told to zip his lip. He did it so well that when he was tarred with the war on women label- he let himself be tarred with it.

Dems don’t let us shut up about this. Media don’t let us shut up about this. Heck, people like Portman don’t let us shut up about this.

Another example of how you are like a liberal, throwing out some ridiculousness “bigot” card. You see, I am a Christian. I respect people, their beliefs and try not to judge them – that’s not my job – because I’m not god. When I see things I don’t like, I turn the other cheek because I am not without sin.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God and that he took human form on earth to die for our sins, was resurrected on the 3rd day and that he will return someday as foretold in the Bible?

That’s a very good point and I believe the heart of the matter. We have allowed our judicial branch to become a veto-proof legislature. We have done so at both the national and state level. We have also allowed the 10th Amendment to become a dead letter, erasing the boundary of national and state governance. If we are to crusade for something, I would suggest attacking these problems.

How are you any different than the people you’ve also advocated to have purged from the party?

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 2:11 PM

How long have you had these hallucinations of exiles and purges? I call them hallucinations because they are entirely fabricated by you. I say again, you are simply trying to smear me to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at stake. If that makes you happy, so be it, but I won’t play along any further.

That’s a very good point and I believe the heart of the matter. We have allowed our judicial branch to become a veto-proof legislature. We have done so at both the national and state level. We have also allowed the 10th Amendment to become a dead letter, erasing the boundary of national and state governance. If we are to crusade for something, I would suggest attacking these problems.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I truly think if the GOP can’t stop the infighting and focus on that; we might stand a chance. Most socons just want to be left alone to raise their family and run their communities they way they see fit. The problem is for about 40 years; the judiciary has been used as a bat against us. It isn’t a coincidence that the moral majority rose to power not long after Roe v. Wade.

No gay marriage does not ask the government to limit the government. OMG that is liberal speak if I ever heard it. Gay marriage is asking the government to EXPAND its role. And you may not want the government to tell what people can and can’t do, but that is EXACTLY what state licensing is meant to do. If it wasn’t, there would be no need to license marriage.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Got it.. Any war is peace, and freedom is slavery. When the government tells individuals that they can’t get married for whatever reason that is by virtue the same as the government putting a gun to your head and telling you you cant get married. When the government allows individuals to get married it thus takes aay the prohibitions. I don’t support the government requiring straight people to get a license either – they shouldnt be in the business of telling us who we can and who we can’t marry.

I’m an Evangelical, a Southern Baptist, and a Republican. I do not support gay marriage, but I do think we need to stop hounding on this. The news media continues to demonize us as haters, a lot of people who are on the fence politically tend to side with Democrats on this matter, and frankly…I think as Christians, we should be focused on the condition of peoples’ souls. You know, Evangelism. As Evangelicals, the more people we introduce to the spiritual relationship we have with the Creator, the more impact we will have on people who consider alternative lifestyles to be an option.

No, but telling people gays can’t marry because GOD! is nonsense, and wins 0 votes.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 2:10 PM

There is a heck of a lot more nonsense spewed by Obama and the Democrats than by opponents of homosexual marriage.

And, if you’d actually listen to and attempt to understand some of the arguments put forward by opponents of homosexual marriage, you would find that a lot of them are fully rational individuals with legitimate concerns about societal implications, religious freedom, the size of government, the federal deficit, etc.

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

Hmmm, so your job is actually NOT to listen to the will of the people but to try to set and control the will of the people? An off thought endorsement by the conservatives here who wailed and ghnashed at the teeth that the Democrats dared to pass Obamacare “against the will of the people” when the polls on that were more evenly split down the middle of the population than the polls on gay marriage. Gay marriage has more support than that law did.

Psst. Ever heard of in vitro? But let’s put that omission aside and ask the real question. When a gay couple adopts a child, what makes their union any less deserving of the rights, privileges and immunities granted by a marriage contract than any other couple?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Sure have. Are you saying in vitro fertilization should be state sanctioned?

The homosexual union you desire cannot create life. Are you really that think that you are trying to ignore that fact? You know you cannot win the argument once you acknowledge that fact so you try and muddle the waters. Not going to happen.

Roe was a catastrophic decision. I say that as one who believes that abortion should be legal. It took the issue out of the democratic process. It denied you the ability to change the law by convincing me that I am wrong, or vice verse. Instead, it imposed a standard on the entire nation by judicial fiat, writing in to the Constitution what was never there.

So, the question is, how do we correct and reverse that and subsequent outrages?

How long have you had these hallucinations of exiles and purges? I call them hallucinations because they are entirely fabricated by you. I say again, you are simply trying to smear me to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at stake. If that makes you happy, so be it, but I won’t play along any further.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM

If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

Promise? Oh please, please!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Socons are not the enemy.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Correct. They’re not the enemy. But they are a HUGE LIABILITY!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Sounds like you’d like to see a Republican Party without any Evangelicals or social conservatives.

How long have you had these hallucinations of exiles and purges? I call them hallucinations because they are entirely fabricated by you. I say again, you are simply trying to smear me to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at stake. If that makes you happy, so be it, but I won’t play along any further.

Yeah but that doesn’t work for us. Romney was a horrible campaigner partly because when social issues came up; he was told to zip his lip. He did it so well that when he was tarred with the war on women label- he let himself be tarred with it.

Dems don’t let us shut up about this. Media don’t let us shut up about this. Heck, people like Portman don’t let us shut up about this.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM

The problem wasn’t that he zipped his lip now. The problem is that he flapped his lips for the last 20 years and tried to claim he believed otherwise as soon as he was the GOP candidate for president.

And people like Portman, if they’re playing along with this garbage, are not taking political reform seriously anyway.

Frankly, I’m still in favor of dissolving both chambers of Congress and holding fresh elections with the incumbents barred from running again.

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: Democrats came up with the gay marriage issue to fracture the conservative movement.

Mission successful.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I want Obama out of my wallet.

I want Bloomberg ouyt of my Soda choice.

& I respect Amnericans (same-sex) telling the GOP to stay out of their bedrooms & choice of ‘partners’. A GOVERMNMENT granting same-sex couples the same legal/monetary/etc benefits that same government is granting to ‘traditional marriage’ couples doesn’t give ‘spiritual legitimacy’ or mean same-sex couples are ‘sinning any less’ (that veriage/reasoning should make Huckabee & the Evangelicals ‘happy’!).

Roe was a catastrophic decision. I say that as one who believes that abortion should be legal. It took the issue out of the democratic process. It denied you the ability to change the law by convincing me that I am wrong, or vice verse. Instead, it imposed a standard on the entire nation by judicial fiat, writing in to the Constitution what was never there.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM

You are part of the 1% of liberals who will admit when they get a bad law/ruling that goes their way is not a good thing. Thank you.

Had I the ability I would make abortion a per-state issue in a heartbeat. It’s obvious that national abolition is no longer feasible, but Roe sped up the clock on the Ponzi scheme of Social Security by decades and set up America for unavoidable catastrophe.

Roe was a catastrophic decision. I say that as one who believes that abortion should be legal. It took the issue out of the democratic process. It denied you the ability to change the law by convincing me that I am wrong, or vice verse. Instead, it imposed a standard on the entire nation by judicial fiat, writing in to the Constitution what was never there.

So, the question is, how do we correct and reverse that and subsequent outrages?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM

What I have been saying all along. The GOP has to change the narrative. I agree that SSM is a distraction. The GOP has to tell people that their rights are being taken away by the judiciary. I think the judiciary and the liberal use of it is a common enemy that ALL factions of the GOP can agree on. I love the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” We need to start consolidating our power against the Dems on things we agree with and start hammering it.

If such issues along with gay marriage and abortion are conceeded then we’ve already lost. Why play at all?

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I did not include abortion because it involves the death of human beings, and the continual grouping of those two issues as if they have equal importance continues to baffle me. You guys are playing right into the hands of the Lefties that want you to focus on this crap.

Outcome of an abortion: someone dies.
Outcome of a gay marriage: an obnoxious party is thrown with way too much Melissa Etheridge music.

You can keep trying to pretend you’re on the side of small government here, but you’re pushing for a government big enough to tell the rest of us that you can’t let men and women marry unless you change the current laws to allow men to marry men. Big government forcing the redefinition of existing human institutions to enforce your notions of “fairness.” It’s as progressive as anything proposed by Obama.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 26, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Point out in any of my writing where I supported the idea that if gays can’t marry, well then straights can’t marry. I’ve never said that, nor have I implied such nonsense. I’m not for redefining anything and I don’t support “fairness”. My point is that the government should not be in the business of picking who and who can’t get married. It is none of their business nor is it the role of the government. I don’t support the requirement of a marriage license because I don’t think the government should get a “cut” out of the fact that i got married.

I respect Amnericans (same-sex) telling the GOP to stay out of their bedrooms & choice of ‘partners’

easyt65 on March 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Nobody wants to be the boogie man in anybody’s bedroom. State marriage BTW, invites the government into your bedroom i.e, annulment for lack of consumation, fraud for impotency. And furthermore, government (and by virtue the voters of the GOP) are telling you who you can marry. What do you think government licensing. It is a couple going to the state for PERMISSION to marry their partner..

Outcome of an abortion: someone dies.
Outcome of a gay marriage: an obnoxious party is thrown with way too much Melissa Etheridge music.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Both are salvation issues. Your problem with Christians on these issues is that we actually believe the bible and what is truly at stake. “What profit it a man to gain the whole world if in the process he loses his soul?”

& I respect Amnericans (same-sex) telling the GOP to stay out of their bedrooms & choice of ‘partners’. A GOVERMNMENT granting same-sex couples the same legal/monetary/etc benefits that same government is granting to ‘traditional marriage’ couples doesn’t give ‘spiritual legitimacy’ or mean same-sex couples are ‘sinning any less’ (that veriage/reasoning should make Huckabee & the Evangelicals ‘happy’!).

easyt65 on March 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

No one is going into the bedroom. You are demanding the State recognize homosexual unions when there is no vested interest for the State to do so. The State recognizes heterosexual unions because it is in the interest of the State to protect the offspring that natural occur from such unions. A nuclear family is the best unit for raising the next generation.

2004 election 112 million votes cast
2008 election 119 million votes cast. The overwhelming majority of new voters going to the nanny state dims.
2012 election 116 million votes cast. Most of the lost votes going to the dims.

The data does not support your contention that you can make up the missing so-con votes from non voters.

Both are salvation issues. Your problem with Christians on these issues is that we actually believe the bible and what is truly at stake. “What profit it a man to gain the whole world if in the process he loses his soul?”

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM

No, my problem with Christians like Huckabee is that they’re willing to walk out on the entire fight for our rights over the fact that our opponent wants to wear a pink Livestrong bracelet.

You just smeared me for even implying they exist, and now you acknowledge they do. Shame on you.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I did no such thing. I called you a bigot for attacking Christians. You are. Because there are a small number of social conservatives who aren’t Christian does not take away from the fact that the vast majority are.

Both are salvation issues. Your problem with Christians on these issues is that we actually believe the bible and what is truly at stake. “What profit it a man to gain the whole world if in the process he loses his soul?”

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM

That’s what the world wants – a world without Christians. We’re the enemy, even in America. It’s just now becoming a little more apparent.

John 3:19 – And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

How long have you had these hallucinations of exiles and purges? I call them hallucinations because they are entirely fabricated by you. I say again, you are simply trying to smear me to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at stake. If that makes you happy, so be it, but I won’t play along any further.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I smell a saved post coming.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 2:24 PM

People forget what they say. It’s helpful to remind them.

The best part of the Romney administration is that he won’t have to bow and scrape to the demands of the kooks who have glommed on to the GOP. Every so often in politics coalitions change and adjust. This is one of those inflection points where the GOP will finally be able to rid itself of the devils known as the religious right. Reagan was the first to truly dine with them, and he was wise enough to use a long spoon. The lesser men who weren’t have allowed the party to be painted with their brush.

The rise of Romney is the clarion call to rational Americans of all stripes who just want a nation that works. A nation of prosperity and of freedom and opportunity. Gone will be the fractious and unedifying fights over whose religion is the right one on which to base our laws. Reagan envisioned a big tent, but his successors turned away half the country at it’s door. Mitt will open that door again and welcome all of those who share the common vision of America as the great power we deserve it to be because of the principles on which we were founded and most of us still share.

MJBrutus on March 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Presented in full for context. Why would any self respecting Social Conservative stay in a party with people who feel like this about them. Add to that the hypocrisy. MJ, you want us to table our opinions on social issues while you’re able to push the opposite side of them. Classic dodge of these folks.

Table the abortion issue?

Roe was a catastrophic decision. I say that as one who believes that abortion should be legal.

So, the question is, how do we correct and reverse that and subsequent outrages?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Table the traditional marriage issues? It would take all day to post all of your comments pushing the issues of the gay movement.

Sure makes it easy for the progressive issues you push when you tell us it should be “taken off the table” for us. Convenient.

Both are salvation issues. Your problem with Christians on these issues is that we actually believe the bible and what is truly at stake. “What profit it a man to gain the whole world if in the process he loses his soul?”

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM

.
No, my problem with Christians like Huckabee is that they’re willing to walk out on the entire fight for our rights over the fact that our opponent wants to wear a pink Livestrong bracelet.

Roe was a catastrophic decision. I say that as one who believes that abortion should be legal. It took the issue out of the democratic process. It denied you the ability to change the law by convincing me that I am wrong, or vice verse. Instead, it imposed a standard on the entire nation by judicial fiat, writing in to the Constitution what was never there.

So, the question is, how do we correct and reverse that and subsequent outrages?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM

At this point, you can’t, because the battle lines have been long-since drawn and no one is willing to budge an inch on Roe because both sides recognize that the stakes are zero-sum. There is a great irony in all of this: if social “conservatives” had not oriented their response to Roe as a broad rejection of abortion and abortion rights, but instead focused on its flawed legal reasoning and its violation of state sovereignty, there’s a good chance it would have already been overturned simply as a matter of sound legal jurisprudence. Instead, every single nominee to the federal court system is required to take a stand for, or against, Roe, as is. This is entirely the fault of social “conservatives” whose activism made it this way–they shot themselves in the foot and they’re too dense to realize it.

You have one life, let it be gay
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No, let the moment enfold you
Grab up every golden chance
Life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
Vivez!

Live, here’s to life, let us all be gay
Let go of each inhibition
No one need give you permission
What are you waiting for?
Vivez!

No, my problem with Christians like Huckabee is that they’re willing to walk out on the entire fight for our rights over the fact that our opponent wants to wear a pink Livestrong bracelet.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Obviously that’s not true because I’ve never heard Huch comment on anyone’s bracelets. You can stand that he actually purports to put his Christian beliefs first. Or at least believes that evengelicals will. We all vote for whatever we value most.

At this point, you can’t, because the battle lines have been long-since drawn and no one is willing to budge an inch on Roe because both sides recognize that the stakes are zero-sum. There is a great irony in all of this: if social “conservatives” had not oriented their response to Roe as a broad rejection of abortion and abortion rights, but instead focused on its flawed legal reasoning and its violation of state sovereignty, there’s a good chance it would have already been overturned simply as a matter of sound legal jurisprudence. Instead, every single nominee to the federal court system is required to take a stand for, or against, Roe, as is. This is entirely the fault of social “conservatives” whose activism made it this way–they shot themselves in the foot and they’re too dense to realize it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM

You are off your rocker– Planned Parenthood v. Casey did EXACTLY that. Our own ‘republican” justices found in favor of the Constitutional right to an abortion based on frickin precedent.

Roe because both sides recognize that the stakes are zero-sum. There is a great irony in all of this: if social “conservatives” had not oriented their response to Roe as a broad rejection of abortion and abortion rights, but instead focused on its flawed legal reasoning and its violation of state sovereignty, there’s a good chance it would have already been overturned simply as a matter of sound legal jurisprudence. Instead, every single nominee to the federal court system is required to take a stand for, or against, Roe, as is. This is entirely the fault of social “conservatives” whose activism made it this way–they shot themselves in the foot and they’re too dense to realize it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM

This is why you might be the one person here I have to admit I feel utter contempt for. That you’re so callous as to call the aborting of nearly 50 million human beings a “sum-zero” stake. Words fail me. You’ve no soul.

And all your BS about why we’ve failed. It’s just that. The abortion issue was framed by the liberal media in a manner that made it impossible to reverse.

There is a great irony in all of this: if social “conservatives” had not oriented their response to Roe as a broad rejection of abortion and abortion rights, but instead focused on its flawed legal reasoning and its violation of state sovereignty, there’s a good chance it would have already been overturned simply as a matter of sound legal jurisprudence.

Because leftists respond to sound jurisprudential reasoning. Ha.

Instead, every single nominee to the federal court system is required to take a stand for, or against, Roe, as is. This is entirely the fault of social “conservatives” whose activism made it this way–they shot themselves in the foot and they’re too dense to realize it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I think the blame is more properly affixed to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. Social conservatives, in addition to pointing out the medical fact that abortion is murder and a violation of an individual’s rights, also make an issue of the whole penumbras/right to privacy nonsense.

The pro-baby murder side of the debate has always been the more emotional, shrieking and howling and engaging in the worst kind of theatrics.

Huckabee, over the weekend, had a bit about a college student [I didn’t hear from what University], who had a Professor who told his class to write, “Jesus,” on a piece of paper, throw the paper to the ground, and then stomp on it. The student refused, and was suspended.